From cf479996a8404434c6b308ed2ddf08bfa0aa97ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Carl Worth Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:47:33 +1100 Subject: [PATCH] RE: Reply all - issue --- 47/6687e01498bcfe47716fec84550b4a89a95bef | 102 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 102 insertions(+) create mode 100644 47/6687e01498bcfe47716fec84550b4a89a95bef diff --git a/47/6687e01498bcfe47716fec84550b4a89a95bef b/47/6687e01498bcfe47716fec84550b4a89a95bef new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3c1151fbb --- /dev/null +++ b/47/6687e01498bcfe47716fec84550b4a89a95bef @@ -0,0 +1,102 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B352431FB6 + for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:44:54 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: 0.01 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01] autolearn=disabled +Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id ZuQYcSllI8Iv for ; + Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:44:53 -0800 (PST) +Received: from arlo.cworth.org (arlo.cworth.org [50.126.95.6]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DC2A431FAE + for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:44:53 -0800 (PST) +Received: from yoom.home.cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF01C29A063; + Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:44:51 -0800 (PST) +Received: by yoom.home.cworth.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) + id C700A67855; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:47:33 -0800 (PST) +From: Carl Worth +To: Robert Mast , + 'Jani Nikula' , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: RE: Reply all - issue +In-Reply-To: <002601cdfd83$83b283f0$8b178bd0$@nl> +References: <000001cdfcd9$82500f00$86f02d00$@nl> <87wquxjq7k.fsf@nikula.org> + <002601cdfd83$83b283f0$8b178bd0$@nl> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.1 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:47:33 +1100 +Message-ID: <87boc8bt8a.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; + micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 02:44:54 -0000 + +--=-=-= + +Robert Mast writes: +> Your point on patch-breaking related to gmail and my proposal isn't +> completely clear to me, but I've probably addressed it well with my new +> approach. + +The issue here is that many developers tend to develop a patch series +(perhaps with dozens of patches) as a single conceptual unit. When these +are emailed out, they are often sent as one thread with a new subject +for every patch. In particular, users of git and "git send-email" often +send patches this way. For what it's worth, it's my preferred way to +send and receive patches via email. + +It's extremely useful for messages like this to be presented as a +single thread. This means that the dozens of messages don't clutter the +inbox, and it also allows for an operation to act on all of the messages +at once, (for example, notmuch provides "C-u |" which can apply all of +the received patches to a code repository in a single operation). + +So, those of us accustomed to sending, receiving, reviewing, and +applying patches emailed in this way would be basically unable to use an +email program that split threads unconditionally on subject changes. + +So it may be tricky to find a single behavior that would make everyone +happy. Perhaps a configuration option for splitting threads on subject +changes. + +> I'll study the code for adding the option of unconditional (stripped) +> subject breaking on top of the existing thread-breaking. + +Is there any existing thread-breaking? There wasn't the last time I +looked at the code closely, (but admittedly, that was a while ago). + +-Carl + + +--=-=-= +Content-Type: application/pgp-signature + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- +Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) + +iEYEARECAAYFAlEHOEUACgkQ6JDdNq8qSWgLlgCffo6q71opXZZ8zt3iCRQPQhIW +9KMAmQGmrC8Y7y8WPbD29mBlpKVj3lkb +=d9g7 +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- +--=-=-=-- -- 2.26.2